you are treading dangerous and unnecessary waters by even discussing
"representation" and "reality". why is it inconceivable that in 1895, even
knowing I was looking at a screen and not a scenic railroad, i would still
react to an oncoming train by moving back? why can't i acknowledge the
screen and the images for what they are instead as some "representation" of
something? it was a train, and for the first time ever, it was moving on the
screen, coming right at me. if we can agree there was no "mistaking
representation for reality", if those are the words one insists on using,
how does one account for the reflex reaction?
>From: [log in to unmask]
>Reply-To: Film-Philosophy Salon <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Reacting to screen events
>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:35:37 -0500
>
> >>the point would be to speculate
> >>whether they actually mistook the representation for reality ("The train
>might
> >>jump from the screen") or whether they reacted as Tamas describes
>because they
> >>found the perceptual event disturbing or unpleasant. The former I find
>highly
> >>unlikely, the latter possible but not very likely.
>
>yes, yes, a thousand times yes!!!! . . . once again henry bacon
>rides to the rescue . . . the presumption that a nervous or reflexive
>or bodily response to a stimulus constitutes some mis-taking of
>the representation for that which is represented is at the heart
>of too much confusion, even on this list
>
>mike
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
|